Non-essential Christian Doctrines
- Thread starter NightTwister
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Another meaningless comment pretending to be a rational response.
Why do you think that being a jackdonkey is acceptable for someone claiming to be a Christian?
I believe the Trinity is an essential doctrine to believe in to be saved but this is only if they are aware of such a truth taught in Scripture. Generally, most believers who start off in the faith are not aware of the Trinity. So obviously if they got hit by a bus and died shortly after they accepted Jesus (without knowing about the Trinity), they would be saved. But if the Trinity is revealed to them (Which is taught in Scripture), and they reject that truth, then I believe they are not saved by their rejection of such a truth. How can this be? Well, a person cannot worship a false god and still be saved.
As for OSAS (Once Saved Always Saved): This is really a shallow surface level belief that really has no good grounding in Scripture. Yes, the OSAS believer can bring up OSAS proof texts, but yet they ignore the surrounding context to make their OSAS verses work. All a person has to do is use ChatGPT or another AI and ask it to refute OSAS using the context. No debate discussion here is even necessary. Just reading the Bible should refute this belief. But people see what they desire. The promise of God keeping you, etc. is conditional based on faithful actions in following the Lord.
Anyway, I have encountered two different types of OSAS believers. Some say you have to live holy in order for OSAS to be true. Others say you can live like the devil on some level and you are still saved all because one believes the gospel message in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 or they trust in Jesus Christ as their Savior alone. Personally, I don't see believers who justify sin as saved because Scripture says in Matthew 13:41-42 that Jesus will send forth His angels and they will gather out of His Kingdom all who do iniquity and they will be cast into the furnace of fire. John 8:34-35 says that the servant of sin will not abide in the house forever (i.e., they will not abide in the house of Christ). Meaning, in the end, Jesus will give His kingdom back to God the Father (1 Corinthians 15:24). But before Jesus gives His Kingdom back to God the Father He needs to first purge out those in His Kingdom who do iniquity (Matthew 13:41-42). This is why Paul says be not deceived, the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). They will not inherit God the Father's Kingdom when Jesus gives His Kingdom back to the Father in the end.
I wish things were different (of course).
I really wish a sin and still be saved belief was true. But it simply is not.
This is the reality in Scripture that many Christians today are unable to face.
....
As for OSAS (Once Saved Always Saved): This is really a shallow surface level belief that really has no good grounding in Scripture. Yes, the OSAS believer can bring up OSAS proof texts, but yet they ignore the surrounding context to make their OSAS verses work. All a person has to do is use ChatGPT or another AI and ask it to refute OSAS using the context. No debate discussion here is even necessary. Just reading the Bible should refute this belief. But people see what they desire. The promise of God keeping you, etc. is conditional based on faithful actions in following the Lord.
Anyway, I have encountered two different types of OSAS believers. Some say you have to live holy in order for OSAS to be true. Others say you can live like the devil on some level and you are still saved all because one believes the gospel message in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 or they trust in Jesus Christ as their Savior alone. Personally, I don't see believers who justify sin as saved because Scripture says in Matthew 13:41-42 that Jesus will send forth His angels and they will gather out of His Kingdom all who do iniquity and they will be cast into the furnace of fire. John 8:34-35 says that the servant of sin will not abide in the house forever (i.e., they will not abide in the house of Christ). Meaning, in the end, Jesus will give His kingdom back to God the Father (1 Corinthians 15:24). But before Jesus gives His Kingdom back to God the Father He needs to first purge out those in His Kingdom who do iniquity (Matthew 13:41-42). This is why Paul says be not deceived, the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). They will not inherit God the Father's Kingdom when Jesus gives His Kingdom back to the Father in the end.
I wish things were different (of course).
I really wish a sin and still be saved belief was true. But it simply is not.
This is the reality in Scripture that many Christians today are unable to face.
....
The Parable of the Prodigal Son shows that one can be dead spiritually and then become alive AGAIN spiritually. The parable is not referring to how the son literally died. The parable is speaking in spiritual terms. A believer who was once saved can die spiritually and then come back through seeking forgiveness with the Lord Jesus. In other words, the prodigal son was surely not saved while he was living it up with prostitutes. Some say that he was still called a son, implying he was saved the whole time. But there those who are called children of disobedience. That does not mean they are saved.
In addition, James 5:19–20 teaches that a believer can stray from the truth and fall into sin, endangering his soul. Yet if he repents and is restored, his soul is saved again from death, showing that salvation can be lost and regained through being renewed back to being faithful to the Lord again.
....
In addition, James 5:19–20 teaches that a believer can stray from the truth and fall into sin, endangering his soul. Yet if he repents and is restored, his soul is saved again from death, showing that salvation can be lost and regained through being renewed back to being faithful to the Lord again.
....
Respectfully Disagree, as while Assurance may not have been 'in view' for Israel, we
find a Different picture when we prayerfully / Carefully review what Paul has for us,
In The Body Of Christ!:
Because Of God's Own All-Sufficient BLOOD Shed FOR
mankind, there is Only ONE [ Spiritual ] Baptism In Which God Has
All The Following "Profitable" Scriptures For The Body Of Christ!:
God's Eternal Salvation Is, In Biblical Fact, "in view" In God's Revelation Of The Mystery,
To/For Gentiles, Today, In His Dispensation Of The Grace Of God, Biblically Confirmed By:
God's OPERATION On All New-born babes In Christ!
+ Updates: (of # 11) + (of #14)
+
God's Eternal Life Assurance
+
God's Eternal Life Insurance
Precious friend(s), Please Be Very Richly Encouraged And Edified
In Christ, and In His Precious Word Of Truth!
Amen.
Of course, as you wish, "no debate or discussion is necessary" + neither was AI needed =
Just ALL the related Scriptures on This Important Sound Doctrine, eh?
1 John 2:3 says,
“And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.”
We can have an assurance in knowing Christ if we keep His commandments.
1 John 2:4 says,
“He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.”
The person who says they know Him and yet does not keep His commands is a liar, and the truth is not in them.
1 John 5:12 says,
“He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.”
Meaning, we have to abide in Christ in order to have eternal life.
1 Timothy 6:16 says,
“Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.”
Meaning, Jesus is the source of immortality or eternal life. We have to abide in Christ to have this eternal life because He is the only source of life. This eternal life is not a magical wish like from a genie or like some kind of super power given to us. Eternal life is Jesus.
For Jesus says,
John 14:6
“I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”
As for the blood:1 John 1:7 says,
“But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.”
So you have to walk in the light to have the blood of Jesus cleanse you of all sin.
What is walking in the light?
1 John 2:9–10 gives you the answer by its indirect wording.
“He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now.
He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him.”
He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him.”
It is loving your brother.
Read these verses in the context of their chapters for yourself in the KJV.
Side Note:
Oh, and when John says, keep His commandments, he is referring to the New Testament commands and not Mosaic Law like the ceremonial, judicial, or civic laws. In other words, Christians do not have to keep the Saturday Sabbath, dietary laws, circumcision, holy days, or animal sacrifices if the Jewish temple is present.
....
The Bible Society has unveiled a sweeping analysis of how culture, religion, politics and economics shape engagement with Scripture across the globe.
Major new report maps how the world engages with the Bible
Good article which shows that despite languages, culture and customs, people have a need for God.
Major new report maps how the world engages with the Bible
Good article which shows that despite languages, culture and customs, people have a need for God.
Oh, I see we have different definitions of essential.
I employ the term "kerygma" for salvation and "didache" for living.
Isn't a denomination essentially a division due to different doctrines? While its probably preferable not to "war" against another denomination in preference to winning lost souls for Christ, minor false doctrines over time will lead to greater and greater false doctrines, and eventually, heresies. Although this may take lifetimes, its not desirable, so the search for truth is a worthy pursuit.
Salvation can be an essential doctrine. For example, those who don't believe in eternal security may often therefore believe in salvation by works, which becomes a salvation issue.
Water baptism - not a salvation issue, although it can become so for those who believe it is. This is simply a matter of right and wrong, and believer's baptism (full immersion) is the one best supported by scripture, although there are good scriptural arguments for infant baptism, which only are defeated by the safety/practicality issues of fully immersing a baby (accepted by adherents of infant baptism), and which therefore result in the resort to non-biblical sprinkling. I'd say 8th-day circumcision has more of a scriptural justification than infant sprinkling, but there's an obvious potential for this to develop into a heresy.
Spiritual gifts - you may have seen in recent years, but a wrong view of this can lead to some serious sins and abuse within the church. There are also those who believe certain spiritual gifts are a requirement for salvation, which puts such churches as dangerously close to crossing the line into damnable heresy.
Communion - I don't believe this can become a salvation issue, although again, there is right and wrong. While my personal belief leans more to memorial, I think there is a fairly solid scriptural case for substantiation. "This is my body".
Giving - again important, as it can lead to the wrong type of church leadership and legalism. But not usually a salvation issue.
Leadership - there is a right way and a wrong way here, and I think we can see examples of churches who get this very wrong falling quickly into apostasy. Female pastors to me is a warning sign the church has a limited time before it expands its false teachings (if it hasn't already), although we now see worse - homosexual pastors and pedophile pastors. Basically, the more seriously a church defies God's leadership requirements, the shorter lifespan the church will have, in terms of not becoming apostate. Disobedience in the leadership quickly leads to disobedience in other aspects.
Eschatology - again, not necessarily salvation related, but can be in extreme cases (e.g. John Hagee's extreme view on this has led to him pushing the heretical view that Jews don't need to believe on Jesus for salvation).
In summary, while an incorrect doctrine on any of the above may not result in immediate salvation issue, usually false doctrines impact on other doctrines over time, and ultimately can lead to abusers taking power in the church, and/or the church adopting other heresies that are salvation issues.
Which has the strongest influence in your life?
Your desire to war and control? Or your desire to forgive?
This is where all the non-essential Christian doctrines come down to.
And in your growth which can come from a long walk as a Christian you should be happy for others to love God in their own ways, because He gave us free-will. And if He respects free-will (Since The Garden) then none of us are fit to judge how we love God.
Your desire to war and control? Or your desire to forgive?
This is where all the non-essential Christian doctrines come down to.
And in your growth which can come from a long walk as a Christian you should be happy for others to love God in their own ways, because He gave us free-will. And if He respects free-will (Since The Garden) then none of us are fit to judge how we love God.
@Toknow and @Just_A__Follower i saw your other discussion on the Essential Christian topic about Adam and Even and first sin so i thought i'd bring this here in this topic where we can disagree about the small stuff. 
@Toknow could you please explain to me why in the West people make Adam responsible for the fall?
In the Orthodox Church they're both responsible.
Thank you.
@Toknow could you please explain to me why in the West people make Adam responsible for the fall?
In the Orthodox Church they're both responsible.
Thank you.
Yay. I love disagreement. Just joking. I never looked much into why the Orthodox Church believes that. I may have check it out.@Toknow and @Just_A__Follower i saw your other discussion on the Essential Christian topic about Adam and Even and first sin so i thought i'd bring this here in this topic where we can disagree about the small stuff.
@Toknow could you please explain to me why in the West people make Adam responsible for the fall?
In the Orthodox Church they're both responsible.
Thank you.
Yes, let's disagree a bit over this while keeping in mind the essential Christian doctrines where we all love God in our own unique ways and we keep the pillars of Christianity going for generations.
So, the Bible says this about The Fall:
How do you get Adam as the man responsible there? In the chronology we see the serpent tempting Eve, she is deceived and not strong enough to resist, then she gives the fruit to Adam who is also not strong enough to resist and trusts her and then we get physical death.
So in which configuration is Adam responsible?
I hope this doesn't have anything to do with women's rights in the West.
But just to let you all know women had equal rights to men in ancient Rome. In Greece not so much but before them, even in Egypt women had equal rights to men to own land.
So it's not a new thing you know?
Okay sorry don't want to distract from the question.
But just to let you all know women had equal rights to men in ancient Rome. In Greece not so much but before them, even in Egypt women had equal rights to men to own land.
So it's not a new thing you know?
Okay sorry don't want to distract from the question.
Yes, that is what I also say:
Teachings that are secondary or subsequent to learning GRFS may be indicated by another Greek word, didache, which means teaching. The didache may be very important and requisite for becoming spiritually mature, but it is not most important or necessary to know/believe in order to be saved. The distinction between kerygma/saving faith and didache/working faith was made by Jesus when He commissioned His original twelve disciples minus Judas (MT 28:19-20). This “Great Commission” speaks of both types of information. The kerygma is indicated by verse 19, in which Jesus says, “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations”.
A Christian disciple is a learner or one who believes the good news about God’s offer of eternal life to all who accept Jesus as Christ, the Lord incarnate. The didache is implicit in verse 20, in which Jesus continues by saying “teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” This speaks of the information a disciple needs to know and believe after conversion in order to grow in Christ-likeness regarding how to live the law of love. It is the “all truth” that is taught by the Spirit referred to in John 16:13. Again, it is very important but not necessary for salvation. Witness the thief on the cross in Luke 23:39-43, who had no opportunity to learn the didache after his conversion; although, like Paul (according to Acts 22:3) and most adults, some didachaic truth is learned prior to knowing the kerygma.
The distinction between kerygma and didache can be seen also in 2 Timothy 3:15-17. The scriptures “which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” refers to the Gospel or kerygma. The scriptural teaching that is useful for “training in righteousness, so that the man [or woman per Gal. 3:28] of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” refers to the didache. The apostle Paul also employs the difference between kerygma and didache in 1 Corinthians 3:10-15. The “foundation… which is Jesus Christ” is the kerygmatic teaching regarding salvation. Paul alludes to the didache when he says that one should be careful how he/she builds upon this foundation.
The distinction between kerygma and didache involves a difference in content and purpose. The kerygma proclaims GRFS, which calls for repentance and acceptance of Jesus as Lord, which is an all or nothing decision that occurs at one moment in time. The didache teaches God’s will regarding how saints or those who have been saved should live in order to be a good witness for Christ, which involves learning more of God’s Word throughout one’s lifetime. A passage teaching this truth is Colossians 2:6-7: “Just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord [kerygma], continue to live in him, rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught [didache].”
Meeting with like-minded folks (separation) doesn't also have to mean treating folks who believe differently on non-essential doctrines as not being part of the universal church (division).
I think that's a stretch. People who deny once saved always saved or perseverance of the saints depending on your terminology will insist they believe salvation is not by works. While that could be construed as inconsistent, we should never tell people what they believe especially if they insist that they do not.
I disagree. Baptism is for believers and their children (Acts 2:39). It is a sign of being in the covenant, but does not confer salvation. Sprinkling, pouring, and immersion are all valid forms of baptism. I prefer the symbology of pouring (I will pour out my Spirit on you). It is unfortunate that churches that insist on immersion as a believer will reject those who genuinely believe their baptism as an infant was valid. My wife, for example. I was baptized by immersion as a believer because that's what my church taught.
I agree with you here. I believe "sign gifts" have ceased, but I also believe God is not limited in how He can work through people.
I believe in "Real Presence", but I don't believe the elements turn into actual flesh and blood. All but Catholics and strict Lutherans are generally open to differences here.
Agreed.
Agreed.
I'm a panmillennialst, which means I figure it'll all pan out in the end. If I had to choose, I would say I lean towards the postmillennial view (not to be confused with premillennial post tribulation).
Good points all. Thanks for contributing.
For starters who did God give the command to? AdamYes, let's disagree a bit over this while keeping in mind the essential Christian doctrines where we all love God in our own unique ways and we keep the pillars of Christianity going for generations.
So, the Bible says this about The Fall:
How do you get Adam as the man responsible there? In the chronology we see the serpent tempting Eve, she is deceived and not strong enough to resist, then she gives the fruit to Adam who is also not strong enough to resist and trusts her and then we get physical death.
So in which configuration is Adam responsible?
Now we know Eve knew about the command but was it God or Adam that gave it to her? I would say Adam passed it on simply off the fact that we know that humans tend to like adding things to the law. She added that they shouldn’t even touch it. Is that what Adam told her or something she added who knows. It’s not recorded who told her so this doesn’t matter much.
Also and being a man he would’ve been the one that passed the sin nature down.
We also read in the Rom 5:12 that sin entered the world through one man. Not one man and woman.
Okay this is a good angle which i think i might have heard a couple of times.
Questions for you now are these:
Eve is what ultimately? A statistic? An anomaly? A toy for Adam to play with? An unaware robot?
Who is Eve and what does she do basically?
Also in the spirit of trying to find verses to support our interpretations, why do you go to Romans to understand Genesis?
Genesis tells you the chronology.
For example here we see that Eve is made as a co-equal not as a servant or as a sub-human.
Thank you for the discussion friend.